TV died on us after about 3 weeks of use, What are our options?

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › TV died on us after about 3 weeks of use, What are our options?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#807498 29-Apr-2013 15:58

Talkiet:
KiwiNZ:
Talkiet:
KiwiNZ: Given that it is a substantial failure of the product, that is no longer working as purchased, a Television Receiver, the Act provides the choice to the consumer for a refund or replacement, section 23(1)

I don't think you've interpreted the act correctly. I believe the supplier still has the right to repair the goods in a reasonable timeframe.

See section 18(2) and read section 21 properly.

Cheers - N

Section 23(1) does not state "pursuant to" sections 18(2) or 21, nor does it state "notwithstanding" sections 18(2) or 21

Regardless, I stand by my statements. It's simply not reasonable to demand a refund whenever anything stops working. That's not the intent or the wording of the CGA.

Cheers - N

Where in the act or it's definitions is "reasonable" applied to consumer rights.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

B1GGLZ

1961 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 136

#807499 29-Apr-2013 15:59

Talkiet:
Regardless, I stand by my statements. It's simply not reasonable to demand a refund whenever anything stops working. That's not the intent or the wording of the CGA.

Cheers - N

According to my interpretation of their policy statement, it is in the case of TVs as they don't falll into the category of restrictions and exceptions. My understanding is that if it breaks you can ask for your money back. In the absence of a legal opinion I stand by MY statement.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#807502 29-Apr-2013 16:01

B1GGLZ:
Talkiet:
Regardless, I stand by my statements. It's simply not reasonable to demand a refund whenever anything stops working. That's not the intent or the wording of the CGA.

Cheers - N

According to my interpretation of their policy statement, it is in the case of TVs as they don't falll into the category of restrictions and exceptions. My understanding is that if it breaks you can ask for your money back. In the absence of a legal opinion I stand by MY statement.

Since you want to argue semantics, go back and look at the list, especially the bit where it says "SUCH AS"... That indicates to me there are other items that are excluded, but aren't all explicitly listed. It's possible that TVs are on that list.

Do you agree with that?

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#807504 29-Apr-2013 16:03

Talkiet:
B1GGLZ:
Talkiet:
Regardless, I stand by my statements. It's simply not reasonable to demand a refund whenever anything stops working. That's not the intent or the wording of the CGA.

Cheers - N

According to my interpretation of their policy statement, it is in the case of TVs as they don't falll into the category of restrictions and exceptions. My understanding is that if it breaks you can ask for your money back. In the absence of a legal opinion I stand by MY statement.

Since you want to argue semantics, go back and look at the list, especially the bit where it says "SUCH AS"... That indicates to me there are other items that are excluded, but aren't all explicitly listed. It's possible that TVs are on that list.

Do you agree with that?

Cheers - N

Again, ambiguous and would not hold in dispute

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#807505 29-Apr-2013 16:05

KiwiNZ:
Talkiet:
B1GGLZ:
Talkiet:
Regardless, I stand by my statements. It's simply not reasonable to demand a refund whenever anything stops working. That's not the intent or the wording of the CGA.

Cheers - N

According to my interpretation of their policy statement, it is in the case of TVs as they don't falll into the category of restrictions and exceptions. My understanding is that if it breaks you can ask for your money back. In the absence of a legal opinion I stand by MY statement.

Since you want to argue semantics, go back and look at the list, especially the bit where it says "SUCH AS"... That indicates to me there are other items that are excluded, but aren't all explicitly listed. It's possible that TVs are on that list.

Do you agree with that?

Cheers - N

Again, ambiguous and would not hold in dispute

What if they could prove that the TVs were in fact warranteed by their supplier? Or are you suggesting that for their entire 100000 (however many) products they carry, they need to list them all in the included/excluded description of the warranty on their website?

N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#807516 29-Apr-2013 16:08

Talkiet:
KiwiNZ:
Talkiet:
B1GGLZ:
Talkiet:
Regardless, I stand by my statements. It's simply not reasonable to demand a refund whenever anything stops working. That's not the intent or the wording of the CGA.

Cheers - N

According to my interpretation of their policy statement, it is in the case of TVs as they don't falll into the category of restrictions and exceptions. My understanding is that if it breaks you can ask for your money back. In the absence of a legal opinion I stand by MY statement.

Since you want to argue semantics, go back and look at the list, especially the bit where it says "SUCH AS"... That indicates to me there are other items that are excluded, but aren't all explicitly listed. It's possible that TVs are on that list.

Do you agree with that?

Cheers - N

Again, ambiguous and would not hold in dispute

What if they could prove that the TVs were in fact warranteed by their supplier? Or are you suggesting that for their entire 100000 (however many) products they carry, they need to list them all in the included/excluded description of the warranty on their website?

N

A company warranty does not over ride the Act

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#807521 29-Apr-2013 16:12

Maybe the warehouse would like to weigh in? They have a social media presence.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#807522 29-Apr-2013 16:12

KiwiNZ:
A company warranty does not over ride the Act

We're arguing at cross purposes.

You seem to be asserting that if something breaks, then the purchaser can always demand a refund.

I'm asserting that isn't what happens, and isn't what the acts says, or is intended to say.

Why does the CGA even speak about the possibility for a supplier to repair in reasonable timeframes if according to you the user can always demand a refund?

Also, just for clarity, do you agree that there are times the retailer can legally elect to attempt a repair instead of issuing a refund?

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

PaulZA

314 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10

#807528 29-Apr-2013 16:20

Thank guys for the replys. Upon reading this, I got my mother to contact their head office to verify if all what they said was correct, and they said it was their company policy if the product died after 7 days, to send it off for repair, instead of replacing it or refund.

We just want our money back, we have lost all faith in the brand, and we're starting to loose faith fast in the warehouse.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#807531 29-Apr-2013 16:21

Talkiet:
KiwiNZ:
A company warranty does not over ride the Act

We're arguing at cross purposes.

You seem to be asserting that if something breaks, then the purchaser can always demand a refund.

I'm asserting that isn't what happens, and isn't what the acts says, or is intended to say.

Why does the CGA even speak about the possibility for a supplier to repair in reasonable timeframes if according to you the user can always demand a refund?

Also, just for clarity, do you agree that there are times the retailer can legally elect to attempt a repair instead of issuing a refund?

Cheers - N

The retailer can propose that and the consumer can reject it.

This i quite topical for me, at Christmas I purchased a new Pioneer 3D Blu Ray player, at the end of March the unit failed, would not play any disc's neither SD or HD. When I took the unit into the major retailer the "salesman" said it will have to sent away for repairs which would take up to 6 weeks, I was somewhat annoyed at that and did not wish to deal with it at that time as the shop was full. I rang the manager the next morning and quoted the relevant sections of the Act, he asked me come in a pick a new unit.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#807532 29-Apr-2013 16:23

PaulZA: Thank guys for the replys. Upon reading this, I got my mother to contact their head office to verify if all what they said was correct, and they said it was their company policy if the product died after 7 days, to send it off for repair, instead of replacing it or refund.

We just want our money back, we have lost all faith in the brand, and we're starting to loose faith fast in the warehouse.

You should stand your ground and serve them formal notification of an intention to file a claim under the CGA

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#807534 29-Apr-2013 16:24

KiwiNZ:
The retailer can propose that and the consumer can reject it.

This i quite topical for me, at Christmas I purchased a new Pioneer 3D Blu Ray player, at the end of March the unit failed, would not play any disc's neither SD or HD. When I took the unit into the major retailer the "salesman" said it will have to sent away for repairs which would take up to 6 weeks, I was somewhat annoyed at that and did not wish to deal with it at that time as the shop was full. I rang the manager the next morning and quoted the relevant sections of the Act, he asked me come in a pick a new unit.

And my assertion is he did that to keep you as happy as possible, not because that was a legal requirement.

I know you're going to disagree with me, I vehemently think you are wrong. You still haven't clearly answered my question (in bold, previous post)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#807539 29-Apr-2013 16:29

Talkiet:
KiwiNZ:
The retailer can propose that and the consumer can reject it.

This i quite topical for me, at Christmas I purchased a new Pioneer 3D Blu Ray player, at the end of March the unit failed, would not play any disc's neither SD or HD. When I took the unit into the major retailer the "salesman" said it will have to sent away for repairs which would take up to 6 weeks, I was somewhat annoyed at that and did not wish to deal with it at that time as the shop was full. I rang the manager the next morning and quoted the relevant sections of the Act, he asked me come in a pick a new unit.

And my assertion is he did that to keep you as happy as possible, not because that was a legal requirement.

I know you're going to disagree with me, I vehemently think you are wrong. You still haven't clearly answered my question (in bold, previous post)

Cheers - N

I did answer your bold with "The retailer can propose that and the consumer can reject it."

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#807540 29-Apr-2013 16:31

KiwiNZ: [snip]
Where in the act or it's definitions is "reasonable" applied to consumer rights.

Chuckle... "reasonable" or "reasonably" appear 49 times in the text of the act.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#807543 29-Apr-2013 16:34

Talkiet:
KiwiNZ: [snip]
Where in the act or it's definitions is "reasonable" applied to consumer rights.

Chuckle... "reasonable" or "reasonably" appear 49 times in the text of the act.

Cheers - N

In section 23 ?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5